![](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/e51f631b-29f3-40e8-8789-39639affc5a1.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4db30cad-866a-45fe-8ba0-4b6a8c869929.png)
This whole meme looks AI generated. What’s with the face behind Picard? Or Data’s eyes? Or any of it, really, once you look closely?
Edit: the original meme has since been replaced. This comment is obsolete.
This whole meme looks AI generated. What’s with the face behind Picard? Or Data’s eyes? Or any of it, really, once you look closely?
Edit: the original meme has since been replaced. This comment is obsolete.
People being convinced that something is conscious is a long, long way from a compelling argument that something is conscious. People naturally anthropomorphize, and a reasonably accurate human speech predictor is a prime example of something that can be very easily anthropomorphized. It is also unsurprising that LLMs have developed such conceptual nodes; these concepts are fundamental to the human experience, thus undergird most human speech, and it is therefore not only unsurprising but expected that a system built to detect statistical patterns in human speech would identify these foundational concepts.
“So rocks are conscious” isn’t, at least in my opinion, the classic counter to panpsychism; it’s an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but not a very good one, as the panpsychist can very easily fall back on the credible argument that consciousness comes in degrees, perhaps informed by systematic complexity, and so the consciousness of a rock is to the consciousness of a person as the mass of an atom is to the mass of a brain.
The problem with panpsychism is, and has always been, that there’s absolutely no reason to think that it’s true. It’s a pleasingly neat solution to Chalmers’ “hard problem” of neuroscience, but ultimately just as baseless as positing the existence of an all-powerful God through whose grace we are granted consciousness; that is, it rests on a premise that, while sufficiently explanatory, is neither provable nor disprovable.
We ultimately have absolutely no idea how consciousness arises from physical matter. It is possible that we cannot know, and that the mechanism is hidden in facets of reality that the human experience is not equipped to parse. It is also possible that, given sufficiently advanced neuroscience, we will be able to offer a compelling account of how human consciousness arises. Then—and only then—will we be in a position to credibly offer arguments about machine intelligence. Until then, it is simply a matter of faith. The believers will see a sufficiently advanced language model and convince themselves that there is no way such a thing is not conscious, and the disbelievers will repeat the same tired arguments resting on the notion that a lack of proof is tantamount to a disproof.
Not a huge beach guy, but I live for the summer. 80F is the ideal temperature; anything up to 100 is great too, as long as I don’t need to perform prolonged manual labor outside. Long sunny days make my lizard soul happy, and all of my best clothes are summer clothes.
It’s been steadily overrun by bots, and I guess the community hit a breaking point
That looks fairly tightly bonded to me–you’d probably be better off trying to cover it than remove it. There’s maybe a solvent, but without knowing which compounds are used for the lettering and the case, it’s a shot in the dark–always worth trying isopropyl alcohol for this sort of thing imo, but it also might damage the case.
Unrelated, but the random blue “AI” slapped haphazardly on top is a beautiful piece of accidental comedy given That Company’s rollout of AI
They’re definitely better entertainment pound-for-pound. I’d contend that the book gives you a lot more to think about, so it really depends what you’re after. I like them both a lot–I think they complement each other very nicely.
does adding the copyright/license information do anything?
Not a lawyer, but I’d be sore amazed if “your honor, he copy/pasted my Lemmy comment” flies in court, regardless of your copyright status. The same goes for those AI use notices–they’re a nice feel-good statement, but the scrapers won’t care, and good luck (a) proving they scraped your comment, (b) proving they made money on it, and © getting a single red dime for your troubles.
It’s not a matter of what people can use, but what people do use. Like it or not, Discord is the de facto standard, and it’s a lot easier to install workarounds that make Discord usable on Linux than it is to convince all your friends to switch platforms.
For many people, socialization is a core part of gaming, and Discord is far and away the most common platform for that socialization.
Gentrification and weed. When I was growing up, there were large swathes of town where you just didn’t go after dark. Now they’re all brand new office and lab space punctuated with dispensaries every couple of blocks.
Timberborn! It’s a city builder about beavers, the primary conceit is that there are periodic droughts that can and will kill all your beavers if you haven’t saved enough water.
Eh, depends on the language and the context. I still use 80 for C, but I’ve found 120 to be a much more reasonable number for Java.
I had absolutely no luck trying. I went on dates, swiped apps, talked to every girl I thought was cute, and none of it went anywhere beyond some weird halfhearted relationships. About two weeks after I gave up altogether, I met a girl on my way to the water fountain and we just clicked. Six years down the line and we couldn’t be happier.
I guess my best advice is just don’t sweat it. Be yourself, do what makes you happy, put yourself in situations where you’ll meet new people, and sooner or later somebody will come along.
It is in fact required
Where tf do you live that a banana is $10?
Quality follows where consistency leads
It depends which calendar you use! Every calendar picks a basically arbitrary system to uniquely identify each year, and in some of them “year 0” doesn’t refer to any year.
The Gregorian, for example, goes directly from 1 BC to 1 AD, since 1 BC is “the first year before Christ” and 1 AD is “the first in the years of our lord.” This doesn’t make much mathematical sense, but it’s not like there was a year that didn’t happen–they just called one year 1 BC, and the next year 1 AD.
ISO 8601 is based on the Gregorian calendar, but it includes a year 0. 1 BC is the same year as +0000; thus 2 BC is -0001, and all earlier years are likewise offset by 1 between the two calendars.
Blind Willie McTell
That’s dedication to the craft